9/11 was there a plane ?

[jois]

12 minutes ago, mishy said:

 

You're right, there is a difference. It means whatever it's hitting exerts even more of the exact same force back onto it. Aluminium hitting steel, steel hitting aluminium, it doesn't matter, the results would be the same. Steel wins.

In material science not just planes that just isn't a true statement

 

In the instance of the plane  ,steel did win if you want to put it in childish terms , the plane was compacted like a slinky the steel just got sliced through

People seem to imaging that there was a whole unblemished pane parked on the office floor rather than more or less a solid block of aluminium

Edited September 16, 2022 by jois

[mishy]

3 minutes ago, jois said:

In material science not just planes that just isn't a true statement

 

In the instance of the plane  ,steel did win if you want to put it in childish terms , the plane was compacted like a slinky the steel just got sliced through

 

You seem to be forgetting that it was all caught on video and none of the footage shows a plane being 'compacted like a slinky'.

[jois]

3 minutes ago, mishy said:

 

You seem to be forgetting that it was all caught on video and none of the footage shows a plane being 'compacted like a slinky'.

Just to be clear are you of the opinion that the footage was faked ? In which case it's pointless discussing with you what it shows

Or real, in which case what are you contesting if planes did indeed cause the damage

 

you can't have it both ways

[mishy]

Just now, jois said:

Just to be clear are you of the opinion that the footage was faked ? In which case it's pointless discussing with you what it shows

Or real, in which case what are you contesting if planes did indeed cause the damage

 

you can't have it both ways

 

To be 100% crystal clear. I'm in the fake camp. And not just with the plane impacts.

 

And yes, it is pointless, you don't have an argument. The footage is fake.

 

https://www.septemberclues.info/

 

https://fakeologist.com/september-clues-tour-guide/

 

 

 

 

[jois]

9 minutes ago, mishy said:

 

To be 100% crystal clear. I'm in the fake camp. And not just with the plane impacts.

 

And yes, it is pointless, you don't have an argument. The footage is fake.

 

https://www.septemberclues.info/

 

https://fakeologist.com/september-clues-tour-guide/

 

 

 

 

No point bringing it as evidence there was no slinky effect then, was there !

 

If you decelerated a plane from say 300 mph to close to zero in a fraction of a second it will compact. That's true if there is a building or not.

 

If you decelerated the front of a plane from 300 mph through say hitting a building, whilst the back of a plane is still doing 300mph it will compact even more

It's the  as same falling out of a window.its not the ground that kills you , it's the deceleration

Edited September 16, 2022 by jois

[mishy]

1 minute ago, jois said:

No point bringing it as evidence there was no slinky effect then, was there !

 

If you decelerated a plane from say 300 mph to close to zero in a fraction of a second it will compact. That's true if there is a building or not.

 

If you decelerated the front of a plane from 300 mph through say hitting a building, whilst the back of a plane is still doing 300mph it will compact even more

 

 

You said it's pointless to discuss it with me, but continue to quote me. If you have footage of the plane with mentioned slinky effect then please post it.

[jois]

7 minutes ago, mishy said:

 

 

You said it's pointless to discuss it with me, but continue to quote me. If you have footage of the plane with mentioned slinky effect then please post it.

I was agreeing it was pointless,but rather bemused by the fact you brought in to " evidence" something you think as fake. It's like you made a slip up there.

 

If the footage is CGI it won't show it.but again your asking me to give you evidence using " fake footage"

To be clear I have no idea if the footage is fake or not

I'm simply stating that a plane could indeed cause that amount of damage to any building any where.

 

I've expressed no views on if the attack was real or not. Just the argument that it's impossible to do that with a plane is a bogus one

Edited September 16, 2022 by jois

[peter]

2 hours ago, jois said:

Cessna's are quite difficult to fly they drift all over the place. I've not flown an airliner but I'm betting it's more stable and easier in flight.its taking off and landing that would be the issue

 

I f you take that out of the mix I cant see a problem with just pointing it at a large building

I get to fly small sport planes pretty regularly,and yes they are affected by the wind but the so called hijackers were able to take over the plane   ,know exactly where they were in relation to the pentagon, program in a new vector heading and all with no training on the aircraft or the avionics  at all,also if you fly you would know that things look totally different from up in an aircraft even from as low as a few thousand feet sometimes I have trouble recognizing my own house simply because you're used to looking at things from ground level

[mishy]

10 minutes ago, jois said:

I was agreeing it was pointless,but rather bemused by the fact you brought in to " evidence" something you think as fake. It's like you made a slip up there.

 

If the footage is CGI it won't show it.but again your asking me to give you evidence using " fake footage"

To be clear I have no idea if the footage is fake or not

I'm simply stating that a plane could indeed cause that amount of damage to any building any where.

 

I've expressed no views on if the attack was real or not. Just the argument that it's impossible to do that with a plane is a bogus one

 

The picture I posted just shows how fragile airplane wings are. To then think that one could slice through steel is ridiculous.

 

 

[jois]

14 minutes ago, peter said:

I get to fly small sport planes pretty regularly,and yes they are affected by the wind but the so called hijackers were able to take over the plane   ,know exactly where they were in relation to the pentagon, program in a new vector heading and all with no training on the aircraft or the avionics  at all,also if you fly you would know that things look totally different from up in an aircraft even from as low as a few thousand feet sometimes I have trouble recognizing my own house simply because you're used to looking at things from ground level

It's not clear , at least not to me.it may be documented somewhere. At which point they " hijacked" the plane and which point they took over the controls of the plane.

 

If it was a case of them saying " fly me to the pentagon" or else. It's seem quite easy to hit a big 8 sided building.

 

If they managed to plot a course there with no assistance from the crew. It's seems a bit less likely. I have it in mind that the one that crash enroute was being flown by the crew. But I could be wrong about that

 

But I'm not in either camp. I am genuinely open minded about it, except for the issue it definetly involved planes. Who was flying them and why is open to debate

Edited September 16, 2022 by jois

[jois]

1 minute ago, mishy said:

 

The picture I posted just shows how fragile airplane wings are. To then think that one could slice through steel is ridiculous.

 

 

You keep using the word slice. Which rather changes the picture. It's a wing not a Stanley knife it didn't slice anything. It would bend the steel till the point it failed.

 

And it wasn't hit by an plane wing. The wing had the rest of the plane attached

[mishy]

7 minutes ago, jois said:

You keep using the word slice. Which rather changes the picture. It's a wing not a Stanley knife it didn't slice anything. It would bend the steel till the point it failed.

 

And it wasn't hit by an plane wing. The wing had the rest of the plane attached

 

What the fuck are you on about dude? The 911 footage shows the wings slicing through the steel as if the steel isn't there. I've posted a picture showing the damage a lamp post does to a wing at slow speed. But somehow the wing can slice though a steel skyscraper? Yes slice, like a hot knife through butter.

 

 

[jois]

14 minutes ago, mishy said:

 

What the fuck are you on about dude? The 911 footage shows the wings slicing through the steel as if the steel isn't there. I've posted a picture showing the damage a lamp post does to a wing at slow speed. But somehow the wing can slice though a steel skyscraper? Yes slice, like a hot knife through butter.

 

 

But you've already said that footage in fake. Why do you keep bringing it up. It's irelivent to our discussion what it shows

But anyway the footage real or not does not show any slicing. It's impossible to tell what happened in microcosm to the steel just that the plane kept goingbut I'm not hanging my hat on it as I don't know if it's real or not

 

Edited September 16, 2022 by jois

[legion]

James Corbett - 911 SUSPECTS - THE DANCING ISRAELIS

clear evidence (10  minutes)

 

https://www.bitchute.com/video/BuEFjjZWMs5W/
 

 

[mishy]

5 minutes ago, jois said:

But you've already said that footage in fake. Why do you keep bringing it up. It's irelivent to our discussion what it shows

But anyway the footage real or not does not show any slicing. It's impossible to tell what happened in microcosm to the steel just that the plane kept goingbut I'm not hanging my hat on it as I don't know if it's real or not

 

I'm bringing it up as the thread title is '911was there a plane'....

 

You maybe want to go and watch the footage again if believe the wings didn't slice through the steel.

 

But you won't, you'll reply with more bollocks in about 3 minutes.

[jois]

4 minutes ago, legion said:

James Corbett - 911 SUSPECTS - THE DANCING ISRAELIS

clear evidence (10  minutes)

 

https://www.bitchute.com/video/BuEFjjZWMs5W/
 

 

It's clear evidence of Israelis dancing. It doesn't appear to carry a lot more weight than that

If they were say mosad agents I'm sure they train them not to dance. Cloak and dagger operations and dancing are not a good fit

[Bombadil]

2 hours ago, TheConsultant said:

https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf - Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

The key to understanding WTC is not understanding rubber, nor conservation of energy.

You must be a conspiracy theorist talking about Thermite!!!

 

But you are right.

[jois]

6 minutes ago, mishy said:

 

I'm bringing it up as the thread title is '911was there a plane'....

 

You maybe want to go and watch the footage again if believe the wings didn't slice through the steel.

 

But you won't, you'll reply with more bollocks in about 3 minutes.

Why do you keep refering me to fake footage. It makes no sense to say it's fake and then use it to support your point

Ok il change my stance and agree the footage is fake, some of it is a bit sketchy

As we both now complely agree can we discuss the laws of motion and not video editing

Edited September 16, 2022 by jois

[mishy]

8 minutes ago, jois said:

Why do you keep refering me to fake footage. It makes no sense to say it's fake and then use it to support your point

Ok il change my stance and agree the footage is fake

As we both now complely agree can we discuss the laws of motion and not video editing

 

I'm referring you to it as if you really wanted to find out what happened that day that's where you'll find it. I don't care about the laws of motion or video editing. I'm just here to point out the footage from that day is fake and no planes crashed. The post with the pole just adds more confirmation, I didn't put a comment on that initial post as no comment was required, but here we are several posts later.

 

Nothing else to discuss. Have a good day.

Edited September 16, 2022 by mishy

[jois]

Just now, mishy said:

 

I'm referring you to it as if you really wanted to find out what happened that day that's where you'll find it. I don't care about the laws of motion or video editing. I'm just here to point out the footage from that day is fake and no planes crashed. The post with the pole just adds more confirmation.

 

Nothing else to discuss. Have a good day.

You seem to have changed your stance as well

Your point for many posts was " planes can't do that to buildings"

 

My " oh yes they can"

 

The answer to that point is entirely involved in the laws of motion.

 

Fake footage proves nothing either way on that point! Does it ?

 

It seems like your having a debate with someone else who is making very different points to mine

[mishy]

Just now, jois said:

You seem to have changed your stance as well

Your point for many posts was " planes can't do that to buildings"

 

My " oh yes they can"

 

The answer to that point is entirely involved in the laws of motion.

 

Fake footage proves nothing either way on that point! Does it ?

 

It seems like your having a debate with someone else who is making very different points to mine

 

 

Do you have any footage showing an airplane flying into a skyscraper at over 400mph?

[jois]

1 minute ago, mishy said:

 

 

Do you have any footage showing an airplane flying into a skyscraper at over 400mph?

Not immediately to hand !  It seems quite rare I'm glad to say! Why do you ask ? And anyway if I could find some we wouldn't know if it was fake or not.

[legion]

23 minutes ago, jois said:

It doesn't appear to carry a lot more weight than that

obvious that you commented without watching the whole video
 

[mishy]

2 minutes ago, jois said:

Not immediately to hand !  It seems quite rare I'm glad to say! Why do you ask ? And anyway if I could find some we wouldn't know if it was fake or not.

 

It is quite rare thankfully, but two lucky French brothers managed it. And not long after the news caught another.

 

Here's analysis of what those lucky French Bro's captured that day..

 

https://fakeotube.com/video/48/september-clues---911-amateur-part2

 

No plane.

[jois]

1 minute ago, legion said:

obvious that you commented without watching the whole video
 

To be fare I commented with out watching any I cant stand James Corden. I've seen the dancing Israelis before. Did I miss anything that's worth enduring jimbob for